Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216897 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

CrimeaRiver

UK

#104718 Nov 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here in Dubai we think its winter when you can swim in a pool that isnt cooled.
lololol - I've never heard of a pool needing to be cooled.... now i've heard everything

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104719 Nov 5, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I am indirectly telling you that, science is limited. It does not knows everything. In reality, no body wants to die?
Everybody knows that science dies not know everything.

But we have at least learned a lot more by using the scientific method than we ever did listening to crazy men who thought the Lord of the Universe was whispering eternal truths into their ears.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#104720 Nov 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here in Dubai we think its winter when you can swim in a pool that isnt cooled.
Are you serious? Do you have to cool swimming pools?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104721 Nov 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Life arise from organic matter, no modern hypothesis says something different. Organic matter is long chains of covalently bonded carbon atoms. The Earth pumps these type molecules out from the deep sea vents. These also fall out the sky. So your analogy is wrong from the start, perhaps you mean abiogenesis is a process that life arises from inanimate matter. But your unwillingness to think this is possible , does not negate the possibility it did.
Here is the evolutionist in all his scientific glory, I'm unwilling to think dead matter can become alive, and that doesn't negate it could have happened? The reason I don't think it happened is there has never ever been one shred of scientific evidence that it did or ever could happen. Here the evolutionist shows his faith in the unseen .I thought you guys spoke all the time about evidence? apparently not.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104722 Nov 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Abiogenesis attempts to explain the origin of life through natural processes. But those processes are NOT random.
Ha,Ha,Ha, oh yeah !

Here You go to! redefining the definition of the theory to fit your version of what you believe. You are as bad as sucking bone and Dud

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104723 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha,Ha,Ha, oh yeah !
Here You go to! redefining the definition of the theory to fit your version of what you believe. You are as bad as sucking bone and Dud
How was that a redefinition?

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#104724 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha,Ha,Ha, oh yeah !
Here You go to! redefining the definition of the theory to fit your version of what you believe. You are as bad as sucking bone and Dud
Just because you don’t understand the theory does not mean everyone does not understand it.

Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material

No random involved
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104726 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the evolutionist in all his scientific glory, I'm unwilling to think dead matter can become alive, and that doesn't negate it could have happened? The reason I don't think it happened is there has never ever been one shred of scientific evidence that it did or ever could happen. Here the evolutionist shows his faith in the unseen .I thought you guys spoke all the time about evidence? apparently not.
Of course there's evidence. We've pointed it out to you many times.
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha,Ha,Ha, oh yeah !

Here You go to! redefining the definition of the theory to fit your version of what you believe. You are as bad as sucking bone and Dud
No redefinition needed. Our position all along is that abiogenesis involves natural chemical processes giving rise to life. Since chemistry is chemistry, that means it's NOT random. Remember, the opposite of random is NOT "intelligence".

Tell us Bo, does combining hydrogen and oxygen "randomly" create neon or helium?

You may remember me pointing out that our position doesn't violate its own axioms while yours does in literally MILLIONS of ways. Have you managed to address this glaring discrepancy in your position yet?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104727 Nov 5, 2013
SBT wrote:
I posted a challenge and predicted you could never get started. I was right.
<snip fundie rhetorical BS>
No you weren't.
SBT wrote:
http://www.pnas.org/content/ea rly/2013/06/19/1301664110.abst ract
I posted a challenge, explain the evolution of only one of the 11 coils in the motor and why it runs only on protons or giveup. And by they way, I'll warn you, none these folks have yet to figure out how the motor even starts, so good luck.
If that's the case then neither do you. Something which you already admitted. While everything we DO know is thanks to the evolutionary biologists that you reject for theological reasons. And while you've been dazzling your fellow fundies with faux techy-talk you STILL haven't been able to address why Yersinia pestis completely undercuts your claims. As if Goddidit with magic didn't do that already anyway.

That's why you always fail to present evidence. That's why you lost Dover. Because your side always "forgets" to bring it.

Carry on being a lying hypocrite, SBT. It's all you know.(shrug)

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#104728 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the evolutionist in all his scientific glory, I'm unwilling to think dead matter can become alive, and that doesn't negate it could have happened? The reason I don't think it happened is there has never ever been one shred of scientific evidence that it did or ever could happen. Here the evolutionist shows his faith in the unseen .I thought you guys spoke all the time about evidence? apparently not.
There is evidence this happened.
Starting with stromatolites , the biosphere was created.
The mystery begins with "How did Cyanobacteria evolve?"
From self replicating molecules that formed into RNA chains.
We have been able to make organic matter form into self replicating molecules. It only need time to form into Cyanobacteria. While we haven't been able to quite make what is considered life, we are close...very close, and the evidence is that this is how it happened. The organic matter is there , and we have found several ways it could have made the jump to living.
It won't be long before we do, find out how it happened.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr...

http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/rib...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#104729 Nov 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good linking to a source where membership is needed then using a Watchtower fundie source to translate for us, because they would never lie, would they? Therefore we can't see precisely what it is he's talking about.
No problem - just find the organism that's not a chimp with the genome that's, base for base, closest to human.
I know evos have many problems. They have yet to understand what 'the same' means and perhaps should go ask Alice is Wonderland which theory on abiogenesis she supports.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104730 Nov 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The correct term is evidence, and of course we have evidence that supports common ancestry.
The fact that we have evidence of common ancestry for all complex life implies that there was common ancestry for microscopic life. We also have evidence in the similarity of DNA of different bacteria.
Try not to make foolish claims in the future.
Here is the MO-1 machinery in action. This will keep your theorists busy for a long time. 7 motors and 24 flagella integrated unto a planetary gear system. The gearing is interlocked so the exact flagella counter-rotates in perfect synchronization with it's counterpart. The mindless Time Gods are pretty clever.

"Try not to make foolish claims in the future".

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/11/22/...

http://creation.com/germ-7-motors-in-1
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104731 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
Here Dude!,...here Dud,Dud,dud
Have you figured out what ..spontaneous generation from inorganic matter means?
You should, it's the theory you believe in!
or as I've long suspected, you don't even know what you believe in. Like the other evo fools on here ,it's all about what you are against.
Yes, it means not random and not inanimate. Have you managed to figure out why your position is more rational than ours yet? Still waiting.

Remember that in everything in your posts there has been nothing I have not already dealt with. Unfortunately the same can't be said for you with ours.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104732 Nov 5, 2013
Course they have not isolated all the controlling mechanisms of MO-1 as of yet. Biochemists can't be busied with such things nor understand the type of gearing they are looking at.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104733 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
No one takes you seriously, you are sad. Lying, dodging ducking, accusing ,and even distorting the meaning of words.
Get help cultist
Your post is an astounding example of projection. I already informed you the definition was erroneous. In fact I've been doing that for around, uh, oh, say a year now. LONG before that linky was ever brought up. And anyone can even go back as far as they like and check my posting history if they want. But YOU insist on continuing to beat up your "random chance" straw-man.

So who is being dishonest here? Yup, that's right - that would be you.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#104734 Nov 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
There is evidence this happened.
Starting with stromatolites , the biosphere was created.
The mystery begins with "How did Cyanobacteria evolve?"
From self replicating molecules that formed into RNA chains.
We have been able to make organic matter form into self replicating molecules. It only need time to form into Cyanobacteria. While we haven't been able to quite make what is considered life, we are close...very close, and the evidence is that this is how it happened. The organic matter is there , and we have found several ways it could have made the jump to living.
It won't be long before we do, find out how it happened.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr...
http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/...
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/rib...
Life is a complex factory of reproduction and metabolism. Scientists have every possible environment able to be reproduced in the lab. They can muck around with genes. Yet, after all this time and funding the fact is they have NOT made a living life form.

Speaking of 'several ways' that life theoretically could have made the jump is really just another way of saying, scientists cannot do it.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104735 Nov 5, 2013
One thing everyone is leaving out of their definition of abiogenesis is "assume" (hypothetical/hypothesis). They "assume" it is natural process by which life arises from organic compounds. Just like they used to "assume" spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter.

By saying abiogenesis is not life from an inanimate source/inorganic compounds then you must "assume" life, in some form, always existed since/or before the BBT.

The word assume is taken seriously in much of science but if someone assumes God exists then he must be crazy right?

You guys talk about God as impossible, proven false, can’t exist when your only honest claim can be "has not yet been shown and may never be". Unless you can show that every potential pathway for God to exist has been explored then you are lying by saying God is impossible, proven false or can’t exist.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#104736 Nov 5, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Life is a complex factory of reproduction and metabolism. Scientists have every possible environment able to be reproduced in the lab. They can muck around with genes. Yet, after all this time and funding the fact is they have NOT made a living life form.

*Speaking of 'several ways' that life theoretically could have made the jump is really just another way of saying, scientists cannot do it.
That's very fcking funny, when the paper YOU cited as proof of creationism, was actually about the possibility of other microorganisms and alternate bio-systems alien to our that could still exist. You prove yourself to be totally clueless to wtf you are talking about yet again. It was exactly about multiple possible avenues of the abiogenesis of microorganisms.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104737 Nov 5, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the MO-1 machinery in action. This will keep your theorists busy for a long time. 7 motors and 24 flagella integrated unto a planetary gear system. The gearing is interlocked so the exact flagella counter-rotates in perfect synchronization with it's counterpart. The mindless Time Gods are pretty clever.
"Try not to make foolish claims in the future".
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/11/22/...
http://creation.com/germ-7-motors-in-1
You made another foolish claim.

How it evolved is very well understood. How it works is still being worked on. We do not need to know how it works, the current problem all of your papers are working on solving, to know how it evolved.

SBT will probably not understand the difference between the two.

I started to try to go through with you how it evolved. Why did you run away from that discussion?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104738 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
One thing everyone is leaving out of their definition of abiogenesis is "assume" (hypothetical/hypothesis). They "assume" it is natural process by which life arises from organic compounds. Just like they used to "assume" spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter.
By saying abiogenesis is not life from an inanimate source/inorganic compounds then you must "assume" life, in some form, always existed since/or before the BBT.
The word assume is taken seriously in much of science but if someone assumes God exists then he must be crazy right?
You guys talk about God as impossible, proven false, can’t exist when your only honest claim can be "has not yet been shown and may never be". Unless you can show that every potential pathway for God to exist has been explored then you are lying by saying God is impossible, proven false or can’t exist.
No, you are misstating what we say.

It seems you are more reasonable than most and realize that life did evolve from a single cell. So even though you do not like the word "abiogenesis" you are still accepting an abiogenesis event. The problem with claiming that "God did it" is that you need evidence to make that claim. One thing that scientists have learned is that "God did it" is a mental dead end and has been shown be wrong every time that it has been claimed in the past. So if you are going to make assumptions the reasonable one to make is the one that has been shown to be right in the past. In the past natural processes have won every time there was a debate.

So we have two very good reasons to assume that abiogenesis was a natural process. All other events have been shown to be the results of natural processes, never have we observed something where "God did it" was the right answer. And "God did it" is a mental dead end. You end up with an unsolvable question, something scientists do not like at all.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
2words into 2new words (May '12) 24 min Mila Beaujolais 6,858
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 25 min Mila Beaujolais 45,788
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 26 min Mutant-cucumber 83,175
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. 29 min Mila Beaujolais 1,713
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 38 min Mila Beaujolais 61,103
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 42 min Mila Beaujolais 5,869
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 44 min Mila Beaujolais 15,269
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 1 hr Poppyann 1,515
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr Poppyann 10,643
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Brandon 207,164
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Grace Nerissa 67,250
What Topics knows about you 6 hr _Susan_ 85
More from around the web